Spare me your being ignorant as to process. Bolton was not appointed in contradiction to standard recess protocols.
And the even bigger issue is why the Senate can't just take a damn vote on appointees instead of either opposing everyone Obama sends over (this is his second try with the consumer agency) or putting holds on nominees as bargaining chips on sometimes completely unrelated issues. If the Senate would at least hold votes, let alone actually confirm some of these people, the president wouldn't have to do all this recess appointing stuff just to keep the government functioning.
The appointment of Cordroy really has little or nothing to do with "keeping the government running".
Of course it does. The appointment was necessary for the establishment of the Consumer Protection Bureau. It has been kept from running because of the blockage.
and that's why they did it.
they don't have the votes to kill the agency, so they instead found a back-ass way of hobbling the new agency.
if Republicans can use parliamentary tricks to play politics, then so can the Democrats.
"In May, 44 of the 47 Senate Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), sent a letter to Obama vowing to block any nominee to serve as director of the CFPB absent key changes, including eliminating the director's position in favor of a board and forcing the agency to be dependent on Congressionally appropriated funds for its operating budget."
absent key changes, including eliminating the director's position in favor of a board and forcing the agency to be dependent on Congressionally appropriated funds for its operating budget
..."In May, 44 of the 47 Senate Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), sent a letter to Obama vowing to block any nominee to serve as director of the CFPB absent key changes, including eliminating the director's position in favor of a board and forcing the agency to be dependent on Congressionally appropriated funds for its operating budget."
GOP Blocks Cordray, Limits CFPB
That is basically just a long winded way to say they want to kill it. A department that is answerable to Congress can't take on corporations. Given the amount of control corporations have over the entire political process, you would ideally want it to be as independent as humanly possible from the political process.
they want an agency to have no director? that's pretty stupid.
Bull****. They wanted a board, so that not just one person, a Czar, could wield so much power and not be accountable.
Parliamentary tricks aren't against the law.and that's why they did it.
they don't have the votes to kill the agency, so they instead found a back-ass way of hobbling the new agency.
if Republicans can use parliamentary tricks to play politics, then so can the Democrats.
Accountable? How is a board of appointees more accountable? Accountable is a code word for weak.
Accountable? How is a board of appointees more accountable? Accountable is a code word for weak.
they want an agency to have no director? that's pretty stupid.
And yet our Senate and Congress work in exactly the same fashion as a board. Hmm....
Get the impression that the goal of the GOP was to avoid having a large powerful new self funded bureau controlled by Obama that had no accountability to Congress.
Its listed earlier in the discussion. The new agency is funded by the Federal Reserve. Our Constitution was set up to give the House the power of the purse, and consequently, we the people, as those are the folks we can most often influence with our votes.
Show me where you influence the Federal Reserve ?
Parliamentary tricks aren't against the law.
I found a couple articles. It sounds like the reasons are actually technical, and complicated, but I think it's because he wasn't technically holding up debate, as he took to the floor when nothing else was scheduled. I think it was on a Friday, and the vote was scheduled for Monday.
ps - tell me about D'Amato and they typewriters! I don't know that story ....
On this day in 1992, Sen. Alfonse D’Amato (R-N.Y.) staged the second-longest solo filibuster in Senate history. D’Amato’s dusk-to-dawn talkathon was the first such nonstop event since the Senate inaugurated gavel-to-gavel televised coverage of its floor proceedings in 1986.
The issue involved plans by Smith Corona, a typewriter maker, to move some 875 jobs from its upstate New York factory to Mexico to lower its wage base and help it compete against the lower-priced Japanese imports that had entered the market.
Among other digressions in the course of his filibuster, which lasted 15 hours and 14 minutes, D’Amato sang “South of the Border (Down Mexico Way).” Had D’Amato spoken for another 17 minutes, he would have broken the record Sen. Huey Long (D-La.) set in 1935 when he conducted one of the most notable filibusters in Senate history — an effort that included his recipes for fried oysters and turnip-green pot liquor.
So as not to interrupt other Senate business — a consideration that rarely arose in the filibusters of the pre-TV era — D’Amato began speaking around dinnertime and continued into the following morning. His ostensible object was to amend a pending $27 tax bill to lower the company’s incentive to move. He abandoned his quest after the House adjourned for the year, thereby dooming any chances that his amendment would be included in the final legislation.